|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Donald Trump issued an apology on Friday after the release of a video in which the Republican presidential candidate was recorded on an open microphone in 2005 talking in vulgar terms about trying to have sex with women.
"This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course - not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended,” Trump said in a statement released by his campaign.
The video, released in a Washington Post story (wapo.st/2dSk1nD), was recorded while Trump was speaking with TV host Billy Bush of "Access Hollywood" while they were about to tape a segment about a planned cameo appearance by the New York businessman on the soap opera "Days of Our Lives," the Post reported.
Trump has faced repeated criticism for his comments about women, most recently involving his attacks on a former beauty queen with a vague and unsubstantiated allegation about a sex tape in predawn Twitter posts that prompted Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to denounce him as "unhinged."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-lewd-idUSKCN1272FQ
Reminds me of Richard Keys
|
On October 08 2016 07:03 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 06:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Y'know you'd think if Bill really was such a fuckup it would be easy to get some audio of him saying similar crap. Well no, Bill could be just as into sexual assault without bragging to random people about it
Yes but I could see Trump thinking he'll deflect the sexism onto her somehow and it backfiring in spectacular fashion. I actually kind of expect him to try it. Before he was such a nice guy he wasn't going to bring it up. But he's been getting destroyed for weeks so I feel a quality lashing out is in order and it'll only make Hillary look sympathetic. This is just the never ending trainwreck.
Oh boy, Bill Clinton has said worse on the golf course huh? I'm sure he can back that claim up right?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 08 2016 06:45 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like a lot of that could be brushed aside because of Trump's resilience to decency. And then he talks about grabbing women. This is a really big deal.
Well, everything Russia and any other hacker has will definitely come out, if it exists, Monday. This is clearly enough to sink Trump entirely. If the news cycle doesn't get overwhelmed by something else, this is the topic of the weekend.
Assuming it is really he Russians who are behind all the leaks, it would probably make more sense to save any secret weapon until after the election. Trump isn't likely to win but there is a lot to be gained from discrediting Hillary later on. The email thing isn't going to go away after the election, for example. I don't think the DNC leaks will either.
|
On October 08 2016 07:08 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +Donald Trump issued an apology on Friday after the release of a video in which the Republican presidential candidate was recorded on an open microphone in 2005 talking in vulgar terms about trying to have sex with women.
"This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course - not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended,” Trump said in a statement released by his campaign.
The video, released in a Washington Post story (wapo.st/2dSk1nD), was recorded while Trump was speaking with TV host Billy Bush of "Access Hollywood" while they were about to tape a segment about a planned cameo appearance by the New York businessman on the soap opera "Days of Our Lives," the Post reported.
Trump has faced repeated criticism for his comments about women, most recently involving his attacks on a former beauty queen with a vague and unsubstantiated allegation about a sex tape in predawn Twitter posts that prompted Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to denounce him as "unhinged." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-lewd-idUSKCN1272FQReminds me of Richard Keys
This man is genuinely a piece of shit human being. I cannot fathom how so many people can rationalize voting for him.
|
On October 08 2016 07:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:08 Dan HH wrote:Donald Trump issued an apology on Friday after the release of a video in which the Republican presidential candidate was recorded on an open microphone in 2005 talking in vulgar terms about trying to have sex with women.
"This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course - not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended,” Trump said in a statement released by his campaign.
The video, released in a Washington Post story (wapo.st/2dSk1nD), was recorded while Trump was speaking with TV host Billy Bush of "Access Hollywood" while they were about to tape a segment about a planned cameo appearance by the New York businessman on the soap opera "Days of Our Lives," the Post reported.
Trump has faced repeated criticism for his comments about women, most recently involving his attacks on a former beauty queen with a vague and unsubstantiated allegation about a sex tape in predawn Twitter posts that prompted Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to denounce him as "unhinged." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-lewd-idUSKCN1272FQReminds me of Richard Keys This man is genuinely a piece of shit human being. I cannot fathom how so many people can rationalize voting for him.
really? I find i've been in the thread long enough, and heard enough explanations, that I can fathom it; there may be serious flaws in their reasoning, but I find it quite comprehensible.
|
Just so you all remember, bill clinton got a blow job while in the white house, but who cares about that.
|
That's also a quality non apology apology. I'm not sorry for saying it. I'm sorry if you were offended.
|
On October 08 2016 07:17 Chris1 wrote:
Just so you all remember, bill clinton got a blow job while in the white house, but who cares about that.
How dare we elect a first man-lady who got a blowjob
|
United States15579 Posts
On October 08 2016 07:17 Chris1 wrote:
Just so you all remember, bill clinton got a blow job while in the white house, but who cares about that.
Bill Clinton isn't running for president. And that exchange was clearly consensual. Grabbing women by their groin is a whole other level.
|
Once again Trump's proclaimed ethical standards come back to bite him
|
Didn't we just go over not judging people's private conversations, is that only for lawyers?
|
And so it begins...
The Podesta Emails; Part One
Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta's communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding."
Source
|
United States15579 Posts
On October 08 2016 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:And so it begins... Show nested quote +The Podesta Emails; Part One
Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta's communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding." Source
Wikileaks has zero credibility at this point. Until I see something on at least Fox News, this is all a bunch of nothing.
|
On October 08 2016 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:And so it begins... The Podesta Emails; Part One
Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta's communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding." Source Wikileaks has zero credibility at this point. Until I see something on at least Fox News, this is all a bunch of nothing.
How many documents have they released that were 100% accurate? How many that weren't?
|
United States15579 Posts
On October 08 2016 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2016 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:And so it begins... The Podesta Emails; Part One
Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta's communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding." Source Wikileaks has zero credibility at this point. Until I see something on at least Fox News, this is all a bunch of nothing. How many documents have they released that were 100% accurate?
As we have seen around 6 trillion times this campaign, a document being real does not mean that the purported interpretation is accurate. Showing people doing stuff together is not the same as a direct violation of this or that. There needs to be blood on the dagger.
Really though. Think to yourself how many similar such things have come out which turn out to gain zero traction, even by Fox News. If Fox doesn't try to do anything, it is a non-issue that essentially doesn't exist. There will always be people on the_donald celebrating a "new leak that will END the Clinton campaign". It still hasn't happened because many times people are choosing to interpret things in a way that not even fox is.
|
Is the Uranium Ore people being donors new? That's the only thing in that that even seems to cast any doubt. All the emails quoted are completely unrelated to it and aren't even lightly smoking unless I'm reading them wrong.
|
On October 08 2016 07:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:06 Nevuk wrote:
538 had Trump's chances at 20% before this audio broke and Hillary was forecasted with a 5 point lead. There's no question this will hurt Trump, it's just how much and does it trickle down to affect the down ballet races? I'm pretty sure this is almost the worst possible thing that could happen to Trump's chances, but I'm not sure who else he really has to lose.
He's not doing well with women, but it's not like his black support. I think this will take his numbers with women and make them much worse.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
Playing around with this thing dropping his support among white women 5% and lowering turnout by 5% (I figure it would make democratic women more likely to turnout and GOP women more likely to stay home) gives Hillary a 10% blowout. I think that's a pretty realistic reduction in his numbers (he was already behind, but basically it would double Hillary's chances)
|
On October 08 2016 07:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Is the Uranium Ore people being donors new? That's the only thing in that that even seems to cast any doubt. All the emails quoted are completely unrelated to it and aren't even lightly smoking unless I'm reading them wrong.
No. That entire story is old news. The only thing new in the story that GH quoted is the part about the emails, and they mean nothing.
|
On October 08 2016 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:And so it begins... The Podesta Emails; Part One
Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta's communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding." Source Wikileaks has zero credibility at this point. Until I see something on at least Fox News, this is all a bunch of nothing.
I wouldn't say that, while Wikileaks have promoted various stories that turned out to be bull and you can definitely criticize them for their over the top inferences, they never actually published fake emails or documents that I know of.
|
On October 08 2016 07:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2016 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:And so it begins... The Podesta Emails; Part One
Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta's communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called "Uranium One" which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment's review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as "baseless".
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: "Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign".
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that "Jose Fernandez has personally attested that 'Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter',” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: "Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding." Source Wikileaks has zero credibility at this point. Until I see something on at least Fox News, this is all a bunch of nothing. How many documents have they released that were 100% accurate? As we have seen around 6 trillion times this campaign, a document being real does not mean that the purported interpretation is accurate. Showing people doing stuff together is not the same as a direct violation of this or that. There needs to be blood on the dagger. Really though. Think to yourself how many similar such things have come out which turn out to gain zero traction, even by Fox News. If Fox doesn't try to do anything, it is a non-issue that essentially doesn't exist. There will always be people on the_donald celebrating a "new leak that will END the Clinton campaign". It still hasn't happened because many times people are choosing to interpret things in a way that not even fox is.
Or the other quite obvious option, that they know they are guilty of the same stuff and uniting against their credibility is the safest option for those who are vulnerable to being exposed. There's not much interpretation going on there either, it's pointing out that information wasn't disclosed.
It's going to be several weeks of pretending all of this stuff is on the up and up but Hillary supporters have shown they are up to the challenge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
